Minimum sugarcane price control does not prevent a higher contractual price, and recovery with interest may follow default.

A control order fixing a minimum sugarcane price did not bar factories and growers from contracting for a higher final price where the statute did not prohibit such enhancement. On the facts, the parties reached consensus and acted on the arrangement, making the higher price binding as a novation of the earlier tentative arrangement. The governing state Act treated cane price as immediately payable on delivery and allowed recovery of arrears as land revenue on default, while also preserving contractual price obligations. Accordingly, the agreed price and interest for delayed payment were recoverable under the statutory scheme.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the sugarcane factories and growers had entered into a binding agreement for payment of a higher final price than the minimum price fixed under the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966, and whether such agreement was legally permissible; (ii) whether the amount due under such agreement could be recovered as arrears of land revenue under the M.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1959, and whether interest was payable for delayed payment.

Issue (i): Whether the sugarcane factories and growers had entered into a binding agreement for payment of a higher final price than the minimum price fixed under the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966, and whether such agreement was legally permissible.

Analysis: The minimum price fixed by the Central Government under the Order did not prohibit the parties from agreeing to a higher price. Rule 3(2) permitted purchase at the agreed rate or the minimum price, as the case may be, and the later introduction of Rule 3A did not negate the prior ability of the parties to contract for a higher price. On the facts, the meeting of 21 March 1976 resulted in consensus ad idem and the parties acted upon the arrangement by supply and utilization of cane. The higher price agreed to was a novation of the earlier tentative minimum price arrangement and was not retrospective in operation.

Conclusion: The higher price agreement was valid and binding, and the final price fixed by agreement was enforceable against the factories.

Issue (ii): Whether the amount due under such agreement could be recovered as arrears of land revenue under the M.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1959, and whether interest was payable for delayed payment.

Analysis: Section 20 of the Act made the occupier liable to pay the cane price immediately on delivery and empowered recovery of arrears as land revenue upon default, while Section 23(3) showed that contractual price obligations remained enforceable notwithstanding the statutory scheme. The Act also contemplated interest on delayed payment, and once the agreed higher price was held binding, default in payment attracted the statutory liability to interest. The High Court's view that no such recovery or interest could be levied was therefore incorrect.

Conclusion: The amount and the interest were recoverable under the Act, and the demand was lawful.

Final Conclusion: The statutory scheme did not bar a higher price agreed between sugarcane growers and factories, and once such agreement was found to exist, the resultant liability for price and interest could be enforced and recovered under the Act.

Ratio Decidendi: A control order fixing a minimum price does not preclude parties from agreeing to a higher price where the statute does not prohibit such enhancement, and once the higher price is contractually accepted and acted upon, it becomes enforceable and recoverable under the governing recovery provisions, including interest for default.

---